openDemocracy has worked tirelessly for two years exposing the dark money that funded the Brexit campaign. We have many more leads to chase down. Please give what you can today – it really does make a difference.

Afghan interpreters: belonging on the battlefield, exclusion from the nation?

The recent Windrush migration scandal poignantly illustrated
the tensions between people’s sense of belonging to a country, societal
recognition of that belonging, and legal status and access to social rights.

The support from the Home Secretary and Defence secretary for
the fee waiver is extremely welcome. Also welcome was their effective and swift
coordination on an issue that indeed requires cross-Government
responsibility, as MP Tom Tugendhat, chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee
noted when he recently provided evidence on the case of Afghan interpreters to
the Defence Select Committee. Now it is important to recognise and address the
wider challenges facing former LEC; both in their protection and subsequent
settlement.

The recent Windrush migration scandal has illustrated
poignantly the tensions that can arise between people’s sense of belonging to a
country, the societal recognition of that belonging, and their legal status and
access to social rights. The Windrush West Indians are intrinsically
intertwined with Britain’s colonial legacy, yet before substantial political
and media pressure forced the Government to recognise this, this intertwinement
offered little guarantee for the social rights associated with citizenship. The
former local interpreters and other local staff who supported British military
missions in Afghanistan and Iraq, have also received wide societal appreciation
of their relationship with Britain, as evidenced in the
many grassroots petitions in support of them, yet face challenges in
relation to their protection and settlement.

Afghan and Iraqi Locally Engaged Civilians (LEC), as they
are collectively called, were not soldiers but civilians who chose to work
alongside British soldiers, performing essential tasks in and outside military
bases, in Embassies and humanitarian projects. In a poignant speech last
Monday, on April 30, MP David Lammy recalled the colonial relation between
Britain and the Caribbean Windrush generation, powerfully captured in the
phrase ‘We
are here, because you were there’. Afghan
and Iraqi interpreters and other local staff are also in Britain, because
British troops were in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The close association of Afghan and Iraqi interpreters and
other local staff with the western intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq not
only carried risks during their employment, but haunts them to this day. They
are an explicit target for insurgent forces who consider them ‘tongues of the
enemy’, ‘infidels’ and ‘traitors’, forcing LEC to turn to the countries that
employed them, for protection and support.

My ongoing research with former LEC and their advocates
identified a range of challenges and policy gaps. Resettled former interpreters
and those who individually claimed asylum face very different conditions. Will
the recently announced fee waiver also apply to those interpreters who were forced
to claim asylum in the UK, since they did not fall under the extremely narrow
criteria of the
ex-gratia redundancy resettlement scheme?

Will they provide traumatised LEC with similar mental health
support as offered to ex-service men and women?

Those lucky enough to make it to Britain put great value on
financial independence and their contribution to society. Many are
exceptionally well-educated and fluent in English, keen to continue their
education or work as cultural mediators. However, settlement to the UK’s rural
areas with very little employment chances or university fees form
insurmountable barriers. Many also feel disillusioned by the lack of
recognition for their work. Will the government officially acknowledge the
essential role of local interpreters and the risks they took?

The Sulha network,
campaigning for the rights of Afghan Interpreters who have served with the
British Army, eloquently expressed remaining concerns. Best practices in other
countries can also be a source of inspiration for further policy development. In
California
the State Assembly recently passed a bill that
provides their former local staff with resident tuition rates and fast-tracks
them for hiring by the state. In Germany, the equivalent of the MoD set up a
mentor programme matching active military and reservists with former Afghan
locally employed staff as a way to provide additional support with finding
housing, employment, and a social network.

David Lammy repeated in his Windrush speech the famous
appeal ‘Am
I Not a Man and a Brother?’ The work
of veterans in support of LEC and the many selfies of grinning British
soldiers with their trusted interpreters that interviewees showed me, are
testimony to the sense of brotherhood that many soldiers ascribe to the local
Afghan and Iraqis who enabled their work.

While LEC see themselves as ‘double patriots’, in the apt words
of Colonel (Rtd) Simon Diggins OBE, former British Defence
Attaché in Kabul, serving both Afghanistan or Iraq and Britain, once
their employment ended, they found that their belonging was fractured and
conditional. Many felt discarded, thrown away, and dehumanised; treated with
less care than military equipment. Let’s hope that the decision to waive the
indefinite leave to remain fee for resettled former Afghan interpreters is just
one of many further steps to recognise their humanity, their needs and
contributions.

About the author

Sara de Jong is the co-lead of
the 'Justice, Borders, Rights' research stream and Research
Fellow of the
Research Area Citizenship and Governance at the Open
University. She currently conducts research on the claims for
protection, rights and settlement by Afghans and Iraqis who have worked for western
military forces and development organisations, as well as on the activities and
strategies of their supporters. In November 2017, she was invited to
give oral evidence to the Defence Select Committee on Afghan locally
employed civilians. Watch the session here.

Sara is a guest editor for the editorial partnership, 'Who are 'we' in a moving world?'. The Open University is one of the Tate Exchange Associates who programmed the week of events ‘Who Are We?’.

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence.
If you have any queries about republishing please contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.

Who is bankrolling Britain's democracy? Which groups shape the stories we see in the press; which voices are silenced, and why? Sign up here to find out.

Recent comments

openDemocracy is an independent, non-profit global media outlet, covering world affairs, ideas and culture, which seeks to challenge power and encourage democratic debate across the world. We publish high-quality investigative reporting and analysis; we train and mentor journalists and wider civil society; we publish in Russian, Arabic, Spanish and Portuguese and English.